This qualitative study identifies patient, care partner, and clinicians’ perceptions of the patient-centeredness, benefits, and drawbacks of telehealth compared with in-person visits.

All societies face the need to make judgments about what interventions (both public health and personal medical) to provide to their populations under reasonable resource constraints. Their decisions should be informed by good evidence and arguments from health technology assessment (HTA). But if HTA restricts itself to evaluations of safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness, it risks being viewed as insufficient to guide health decision-makers; if it addresses other issues, such as budget impact, equity, and financial protection, it may be accused of overreaching. But the risk of overreaching can be reduced by embedding HTA in a fair, deliberative process that meets the conditions required by accountability for reasonableness.

Understanding reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is necessary to ensure maximum uptake, needed for herd immunity. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey between May 29-June 20, 2020 among a national sample of U.S. adults ages 18 years and over to assess cognitive, attitudinal and normative beliefs associated with not intending to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Of 1,219 respondents, 17.7% said that they would not get a vaccine and 24.2% were unsure. In multivariable analyses controlled for gender, age, income, education, religious affiliation, health insurance coverage, and political party affiliation, those who reported that they were unwilling be vaccinated (versus those who were willing) were less likely to agree that vaccines are safe/effective (Relative Risk Ratio (RRR): 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.31, 0.66), that everyone has a responsibility to be vaccinated (RRR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.52), that public authorities should be able to mandate vaccination (RRR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.58, 0.98), and that if everyone else were vaccinated they would not need a vaccine (RRR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.78). Our results suggest that health messages should emphasize the safety and efficacy of vaccines, as well as the fact that vaccinating oneself is important, even if the level of uptake in the community is high.

We present a new concept, Punt Politics , and apply it to the COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) in two epicenters of the pandemic: Mexico and Brazil. Punt Politics refers to national leaders in federal systems deferring or deflecting responsibility for health systems decision-making to sub-national entities without evidence or coordination. The fragmentation of authority and overlapping functions in federal, decentralized political systems make them more susceptible to coordination problems than centralized, unitary systems. We apply the concept to pandemics, which require national health system stewardship, using sub-national NPI data that we developed and curated through the Observatory for the Containment of COVID-19 in the Americas to illustrate Punt Politics in Mexico and Brazil. Both countries suffer from protracted, high levels of COVID-19 mortality and inadequate pandemic responses, including little testing and disregard for scientific evidence. We illustrate how populist leadership drove Punt Politics and how partisan politics contributed to disabling an evidence-based response in Mexico and Brazil. These cases illustrate the combination of decentralization and populist leadership that is most conducive to punting responsibility. We discuss how Punt Politics reduces health system functionality, providing lessons for other countries and future pandemic responses, including vaccine rollout.